UN chief: End occupation, divide Jerusalem

Shoutbox

August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again! October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”﻿September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.htmlSeptember 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnessesSeptember 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;View Shout History

This will soon change, you know, but for now it was fascinating to watch how State Dept. Press Office Director Elizabeth Trudeau, at a daily press briefing, November 14, 2016, was able to describe the exact same construction issue as against and for peace, depending on the religion of the people involved.

A reporter said: “Yesterday, Israel’s ministerial committee for legislation unanimously approved a law to retroactively legalize the illegal outposts. Do you have any comment on that?”

Trudeau responded: “We’re deeply concerned about the advancement of legislation that would allow for the legalization of illegal Israeli outposts located on private Palestinian land. … If this law were enacted, it could pave the way for the legalization of dozens of illegal outposts deep in the West Bank. … Our policy, as you know, on settlements is clear. We believe they are corrosive to the cause of peace.”

Next question, without an interruption, hardly a break for air:

“Also, a couple of days ago the Israelis made a Palestinian family of 12, or a number of families, demolish their own homes in East Jerusalem. I wonder if you have any comment on that.”

Trudeau: “We’ve spoken before to this practice of demolition. … We believe that any actions like that raise tensions are counterproductive to peace.”

To conclude: building Jewish homes in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem without legal authorization is “corrosive to peace,” while building illegal Arab homes in the same territory is not only a good thing, demolishing them is also corrosive to peace.

John Bolton Warns Obama May Divide the Land of Israel at U.N. Before the Inauguration

Is Barack Obama about to make the most catastrophic decision of his entire presidency?

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton is warning that there is "a lot of speculation" over at U.N. headquarters right now about "resolutions that recognize a Palestinian state or that try and set a boundary for Israel based on the 1967 ceasefire lines."

Of course, this would have to happen before the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, because Trump has already made it quite clear that he will not support any U.N. resolution of such nature. Knowing that Trump is about to take office, advocates of the "two-state solution" are putting an immense amount of pressure on Obama to support a U.N. Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of Israel while he is still in the White House, and at this moment, we do not know what Barack Obama's final decision will be.

Most Americans have no idea that this drama is playing out behind the scenes, but those in the know are very much aware of what is happening. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article titled "Obama's Israel Surprise?" that discussed the possibility of Obama supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution that would permanently divide the land of Israel, and the New York Times editorial board has formally endorsed such a resolution.

The rest of the U.N. Security Council is ready to agree to such a resolution, and at this point, the only obstacle is getting Barack Obama's approval. That is why it was so exceedingly alarming to wake up on Sunday morning and read former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton's very chilling warning about what could soon happen at the U.N. The following comes from an article on the website of The Hill:

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton warned Sunday that President Obama should not take any actions before leaving office that could hurt Israel at the U.N.

Bolton said during an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis that there is "a lot of speculation over in Turtle Bay at U.N. headquarters about resolutions that recognize a Palestinian state or that try and set a boundary for Israel based on the 1967 ceasefire lines."

"I think that'd be very inadvisable for the president to do that," he said.

John Bolton is still very tied in to the international community, and Donald Trump is reportedly actively considering asking him to serve as secretary of state.

Needless to say, I would take what he is saying very seriously.

So what would this potential U.N. Security Council resolution look like?

It would likely accomplish three historic things.

1. It would give formal U.N. Security Council recognition to a Palestinian state for the very first time.

2. It would grant East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the capital of their new state.

3. It would establish the 1967 ceasefire lines as the basis for final negotiations for borders between the two states.

Up until now, the U.S. government's veto power on the U.N. Security Council has always blocked anti-Israel resolutions from passing, but earlier this year, the Obama administration said that such a "parameters resolution" was now "on the table."

And at this point, we still don't know what Obama is going to ultimately decide, but the Trump transition team is so concerned about this they recently warned Obama "against making moves on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his last months in office."

advertisement

But no matter how much they object, the truth is that Trump and his team cannot actually do anything to stop Obama.

If Obama decides to betray Israel at the U.N., it is going to happen.

And of course the Israeli government is extremely concerned about what might take place as well. According to the New York Post, the Israelis asked Secretary of State John Kerry if the Obama administration would promise to veto any anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. for the remainder of Obama's term, and Kerry flatly refused to make such a promise.

Israel faces a unique window of danger from Nov. 9 to Jan. 20: What might President Obama do in his final days in office to slam the Jewish state?

Start with Secretary of State John Kerry's recent flat refusal to promise a US veto on any upcoming anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council.

On Saturday, Haaretz reports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Kerry he's counting on Washington to stick to its policy of nixing anti-Israel resolutions. Kerry's reply: The administration has yet to make a decision on the matter.

Perhaps equally as alarming is what Obama told the Palestinians. In October, Obama reportedly told them to wait until after the election for any action at the U.N. Security Council.

On the surface, the latest message to the Palestinian Authority from the Obama administration is no different from the past two decades of American policy: the U.S. will veto any resolution attacking Israel or demanding Palestinian independence without them first making peace with the Jewish state. But, as Haaretz reported, there was one significant caveat to the warning. They were told not to push for any such resolution until after the presidential election next month.

So why would it be so catastrophic if Obama decides to support a U.N. Security Council resolution that permanently divides the land of Israel?

John Kilpatrick, Shane Warren, Bob Jones and many others have warned that when we divide the land of Israel, our land will be divided too.

Whether it is Barack Obama, Donald Trump or some other president that does it, someday this will happen.

And when this happens, the floodgates will open and judgment after judgment will hit this nation. I have warned about many of these events in my latest book, and I hope to write much more about what is coming in the months ahead.

So right now we are in "the danger zone" until Jan. 20, 2017.

If we can get to Jan. 20 and Donald Trump is peacefully inaugurated and the land of Israel has not been divided, perhaps we can all breathe a little bit easier for a while.

But if the land of Israel is divided between now and then, the consequences for this nation are going to be more severe than most people would dare to imagine.

Quite the controversy is raging over Israel’s proposed legislation aimed at muffling the five daily Muslim calls to prayer from local mosques. In recent decades, the call of the muezzin has been amplified by multiple loudspeakers, resulting in tremendous noise pollution starting at 4:30 AM every morning.

While Jewish residents have been most vocal in complaining about the muezzin loudspeakers, local Muslims have expressed outrage over the bill, which last week gained approval from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet.

Arab Members of Knesset say the bill will limit religious freedom for Muslims in the country, and the Palestinian Authority has threatened to take the matter to the UN Security Council.

But when pressed on the issue, many local Muslims admit that the volume of the muezzin’s call is often excessive.

Nor has similar legislation in Muslim countries ever elicited such opposition.

In Egypt, for example, the use of loudspeakers to amplify the muezzin’s call is restricted. Muslim scholars at Al-Azhar University previously determined that the loudspeakers are a modern invention, and therefore have nothing to do with the Islamic law that mandates calling the faithful to prayer.

The spokesman for the Israel Embassy in London reminded everyone via Twitter that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also has a problem with noise pollution as a result of amplified daily calls to prayer.

The Arabic-language daily The National reported in 2011 that the UAE had limited the volume of mosque loudspeakers following repeated complaints by Muslim residents.

In June 2015, the AFP reported that Indonesia’s vice president had established an investigative committee to look into the problem of noise pollution caused by mosque loudspeakers. As the largest Muslim population country in the world, Indonesia has hundreds of thousands of mosques all blaring their calls to prayer at the same time.

Even in Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, the government ruled that calls to prayer could only be amplified by a mosque’s indoor loudspeakers, and no longer using the loudspeakers fixed to the top of the minaret. The Arabic-language news portal Arab News reported over a year ago that Saudi imams had been required to remove the loudspeakers atop their minarets.

In Europe, Switzerland decided nine years ago to ban minarets altogether, and in Cologne, Germany approval to build a new mosque was only granted in 2007 after the local Muslim community undertook in write not to use loudspeakers to amplify its calls to prayer.

None of these decisions resulted in international crises.

The fact is that the excessive volume of the muezzin is a nuisance first and foremost to Muslim residents, and that includes in Israel. I personally know many Muslims in the Jerusalem area who can’t stand the daily harassment of the loudspeakers.

But the moment Israel’s government dares to intervene (and in exactly the same way as Muslims governments have in recent years) it is accused of being discriminatory and racist.

A UN envoy warned Wednesday that the situation in the Middle East was changing "dangerously" as Israel builds new Jewish settlements and Palestinians remain divided.

Nickolay Mladenov told the Security Council that Israel's planned new settlements in east Jerusalem were part of "increasingly worrying" developments and urged Israel to halt the construction.

"The situation on the ground is changing steadily, dangerously, as proponents of Israeli settlement expansion feel emboldened, internal divisions among Palestinians flare up, and the prospect of a future Palestinian state comes under threat like never before," Mladenov said.

He spoke after Israel revived plans to build 500 new homes for Jewish settlers in east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make the capital of their future independent state.

The announcement was seen by some as sign that Israel planned to forge ahead with settlements in the wake of the US presidential election victory of Donald Trump, who is expected to be less critical of Israel than Barack Obama.

The United Nations maintains that settlements are illegal and has repeatedly called on Israel to halt them, but UN officials have reported a surge in construction over the past months.

Mladenov told the council that "inaction has a cost -- a cost measured in human lies and suffering" and took a veiled swipe at Israel by arguing that those who oppose a Palestinian state "offer no viable alternative."

"The alternative is an open-ended occupation, a perpetual conflict which breeds anger among the people of Palestine and Israel, and feeds radicals across the Middle East torn by ethnic and religious strife," he said.

Arab governments are discussing a proposed draft Security Council resolution demanding a halt to Israeli settlements, even though a similar measure was vetoed by the United States in 2011.

Security Council diplomats said such a measure could be adopted by the council next month if the United States, in the final weeks of Obama's administration, decides to refrain from using its veto.

Mladenov again called on the Palestinians to unite under a single administration that would end the split between the militant Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Fatah in the West Bank.

Jimmy Carter has called on the outgoing Obama administration to take steps toward recognizing a Palestinian state before leaving office in January. The 39th US president made the call in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times under the title "America Must Recognize Palestine."

The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted six resolutions on “Palestinian and Middle East issues,” ranging from Jerusalem to the United Nations special information program on the question of Palestine. The good news is that Israel still has a smattering of friends at the UN: Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, and the United States (and Israel, of course) voted against; Australia, Cameroon, Honduras, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tonga, and Vanuatu abstained. The rest, 153 world nations that include places where you plan to spend your vacation this summer or buy your car, condemned Israel as being responsible for most of the ills of the planet, especially the Middle East.

For instance, Haya al-Duraie, representing Kuwait which in 1991 expelled 400,000 Palestinians into the desert, expressed support for international efforts that were laying the foundation for security and stability in the region. “However,” the ambassador warned, “the faltering peace process continues to present a danger to the Middle East.”

There you have it.

The UN press release on the assembly votes, includes a section dealing with the “Situation in the Middle East.” One would expect this section to deal with the 500,000 Syrians who died and millions who were uprooted in the past six years; with the war between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq; with Iran’s nuclear threat and its region-wide terrorism; with Egypt’s paralyzing poverty; perhaps with the discriminatory policies of Saudi Arabia. Alas, one would be wrong. According to the UN General Assembly, there are two main issues threatening stability and peace in the Middle East: Israel’s “occupation” of Jerusalem and Israel’s refusal to hand over the Golan Heights to the Assad Regime.

On Jerusalem, the draft resolution called for “respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem,” and in the spirit of respect referred to the focal area of contention only by its Arabic name, “Haram al-Sharif.” The Assembly reiterated its determination that any actions taken by Israel, “the occupying Power,” to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem “were illegal and therefore null and void and had no validity whatsoever” – note the double invalidation. It also called on Israel to “immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures” and stressed that “a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the question of the City of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate concerns of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides.”

At least they called it “Jerusalem” and not Al Quds. One point for the home team.

In its resolution on the “Syrian Golan” the Assembly, in the middle of a raging war between the murderous Assad regime that slaughters its own citizens and ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates who murder everyone else, demanded that “Israel withdraw from all the occupied territory to the line of 4 June 1967 and called on all parties concerned to exert the necessary efforts to ensure the resumption of the peace process.” It should be noted that this example of raging idiocy received only 103 votes in favor, to 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 56 abstentions.

Pheew…

The Permanent Observer of Palestine – who could become the Palestinian Authority’s UN Envoy, should the Obama Administration pull a fast one (so far so good, though) – said the adoption of the six resolutions by an overwhelming majority of United Nations Member States was “a reflection of the longstanding international consensus in favor of achieving a just, lasting and peaceful solution to the question of Palestine,” and “a clear reaffirmation of the international community’s consensus on the two-State solution.”

He then added that “the despair and hopelessness of the Palestinian people is increasing as the fiftieth year of the illegal Israeli occupation approached.”

See you in fifty years?

The representative of Israel said the resolutions had not only failed to promote dialogue or build trust, they had also created an organizational infrastructure that had abused funding to allow anti-Israel activities to take place under the auspices of the United Nations.

She argued that supporting the resolutions and the inherent bias against Israel would not advance the cause of peace, but instead make peace harder to achieve. The “Special Information Program on the Question of Palestine” offers a misleading narrative of the region and circulates prejudiced materials under the banner of the United Nations, undermining the organization’s integrity and impartiality. It was baffling how the United Nations, which continued to face a severe budgetary deficit, had spent approximately $6.5 million a year on bodies that were dedicated solely to promoting the Palestinian narrative.

Loved the part about the resolutions “undermining the organization’s integrity and impartiality.” Who says Israeli diplomats have no sense of humor?

The Jerusalem resolution, numbered A/71/l.22, addresses the situation in Jerusalem and its holy sites and states that “any actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”12/2/16

The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to support a resolution that used solely Muslim language to describe Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” Isaiah 2:3 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: The hatred for the Jewish people displayed by the United Nations is absolutely stunning, and their resolution this week is quite reminiscent of language that came out of pre-war Nazi Germany in the early 1930’s. God Himself has ordained Israel and Jerusalem to belong eternally to the Jewish people. Erase all ties of the Jews to Jerusalem? That’s the role that the Antichrist will play during the time of Jacob’s trouble.

Out of the United Nation’s 193 member states, 147 voted in favor, seven voted against and eight abstained. The Jerusalem resolution was one of six resolutions condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinians that the General Assembly approved on Wednesday, as part of its special annual session for the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which began on Tuesday.

All the European member states present in the room voted in favor of the resolution – countries such as France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. The states that opposed the Jerusalem resolution were the United States, Canada, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Naura and Palu.

Those that abstained were Australia, Guatemala, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Vanuatu.

The Jerusalem resolution, numbered A/71/l.22, addresses the situation in Jerusalem and its holy sites and states that “any actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever, and calls upon Israel to immediately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.”

The text calls on Israel to have “respect for the historic status quo at the holy places of Jerusalem” and “urges all sides to work immediately and cooperatively to defuse tensions and halt all provocations, incitement and violence at the holy sites in the city.”

The resolutions were introduced by a group of mostly Arab countries, including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority, but also some Asian countries, such as Indonesia and Lao People’s Democratic Republic, as well as a few African countries.‘Egregious and Sinister.’ UNESCO Says Temple Mount Not Jewish:

Before the UN passed the Jerusalem Resolution mentioned in this article, it’s educational branch UNESCO passed a similar resolution denying a Jewish connection to the Old City and the Temple.

Resolutions A/71/l.18 and A/71/l.19, the first in the series, pledge respectively to support the UN’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in its efforts to end the Israeli “occupation,” and extend member state’s cooperation with and support to the division for Palestinian Rights of the UN Secretariat.

Draft resolution a/71/l.20, also adopted on Wednesday, with 153 votes in favor of it, seven abstentions and seven negative votes, aims to disseminate information on the Palestinian narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as on all the activities of the United Nations system relating to the question of Palestine. The resolution also states the need to organize and promote “fact-finding news missions for journalists to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.”donald-trump-says-he-will-move-us-embassy-from-tel-aviv-to-jerusalem-israels-capital

DONALD TRUMP WILL BE 70 YEARS, 7 MONTHS AND 7 DAYS OLD ON FIRST FULL DAY IN OFFICE AS PRESIDENT

In resolution A/71/l.21, the General Assembly calls for “a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.” It also “calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and to cease all of its measures that are contrary to international law and all unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

The last draft text adopted by the assembly, resolution A/71/l.8, adopted by a vote of 103 in favor, six abstentions and 56 votes against it, demands that Israel withdraw from all of the Golan to the line of June 4, 1967, and hand it over to Syria.Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said, “Today’s resolutions are yet another example of the daily bias Israel faces in the UN.

“At the same time that Israel is celebrating the historic decision to reestablish the Jewish state in our homeland, the UN continues to fund organizations and pass resolutions that do nothing to better the lives of the Palestinians.”

The United States voted against all the resolutions. The representative of the US Mission at the General Assembly session spoke out against the “disproportionate number of resolutions condemning Israel.”

He further stated that voting on these resolutions “damages the prospect for peace.”

“All parties to the conflict have responsibility to end the conflict,” he said.

The US representative added that his country is “disappointed” that the General Assembly chooses to single out Israel, which is “counterproductive.”

The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed by the United Nations on November 29 each year, the date marking the anniversary of the General Assembly’s 1947 adoption of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. source

The resolution calls for peace talks between Syria and Israel and Lebanon and Israel to be restarted immediately, calls for the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, and determines that Israel being in the Golan Heights and Israel’s de-facto annexation of the Golan Heights represents a key stumbling block to regional peace.

It was passed in the UN General assembly by a vote of 103 for, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the United States), and 56 abstentions.

The resolution is one of six anti-Israel resolutions passed Wednesday, another being on the status of Jerusalem (A/71/L.22). In it, the UN expressed “its determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever”.

The representative from Israel said in the assembly following the vote that “it was shameful how some countries had yet to accept the existence of Israel and abused the General Assembly to spread baseless allegations,” and that the resolutions seek to provide a “biased narrative.”

She continued, saying “since 2015, terror attacks against Israelis had claimed the lives of 42 citizens and injured over 600 and yet today’s resolutions made no mention of those victims.”

“Furthermore, the resolutions under discussion did not mention the internationally recognized terror organization Hamas. No one should delude themselves: supporting the resolutions and the inherent bias against Israel would not advance the cause of peace. Rather it would only make peace harder to achieve,” the representative added.

The US delegation meanwhile, said the US was “profoundly troubled by the submission of a disproportionate number of one-sided resolutions that had been designed to condemn Israel.”

The delegate continued, adding that “it (is) manifestly unjust that the United Nations, an institution founded on the idea that all nations should be treated equally, was so often used by Member States to treat Israel unequally.”

Lambasting the UN, the delegate continued, saying “three United Nations bodies in particular reflected the bias and unnecessary costs of such resolutions and wasted limited resources. Costing approximately $6.1 million in 2015, they did nothing to contribute to peace in the region.”

The US however did reiterate that it views the settlements as a stumbling block for peace.

Syria for its part, thanked the member states who voted for the resolution, saying the vote “sent a clear message to Israel that its killing, settlement expansion and forcible annexation of land ran counter to international principles.”

Meanwhile, the Israeli Foreign Ministry is expecting a tough fight against several anti-Israel resolutions which are due to be voted on at the UN Security Council before US President Obama leaves office.

There are three initiatives which especially worry Israel; initiatives from New Zealand, the Palestinians, and France.

New Zealand

New Zealand, which will be vacating its position on the council soon, wants to put forth a resolution which will require Israel to condemn settlement construction, condemn violence and incitement from both the Israelis and the Palestinians, condemn the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and call for an immediate re-start of negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. A draft resolution is expected to be submitted in the coming days

The Palestinians

The Palestinians are trying to pass a resolution which will term the Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal. Israel is worried that such a decision will prepare the groundwork for sanctions, and be a precursor for an indictment against Israel at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

France

The French resolution calls for an international peace conference, which Israel has already expressed its opposition to. The opposition is premised on the fact that the initiative calls on a time table for discussions, and that should no agreement be reached, France will automatically recognize a Palestinian state.

Israel believes that the US will use its veto power over the French and Palestinian initiatives, yet is unsure as to US action towards the New Zealand initiative. This is because the New Zealand initiative does not seem to be unilaterally condemning one side or the other for incitement and violence.

While Israel is working primarily with the Americans in the Security Council, Israel is also working with other countries as well.

US Secretary of State is expected to discuss the issue at the upcoming Saban Forum.

The PM has two swords dangling above his head: Bennett’s bill to retroactively legalize settlement outposts, and the possibility Obama might let an anti-Israel resolution go through the UNSC.

For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the following sequence of events would be nothing less than a scenario from hell.

On December 25, the first day of Hanukka and the day by which the High Court of Justice ordered that the settlement outpost of Amona must be dismantled, IDF soldiers might very well be called upon to trudge up to that Jewish community in Samaria and forcibly drag away its residents.

Passions will flare, the images will be gut-wrenching, and the country – with flashbacks to the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and the first evacuation of Amona in 2006 – will be torn.

And then, a couple of days later and thousands of miles away in the UN Security Council, an anti-settlement resolution calling the settlements illegal and demanding their immediate dismantlement could very well pass, with outgoing US President Barack Obama possibly allowing it to do so by abstaining on the measure, and not using the US veto.

Talk about losing on all fronts.

In such a case, Netanyahu would face considerable domestic political fallout from giving the order to tear down Amona. And this fallout would only be compounded by pictures from the world body not praising him for the move, but rather going further and slamming Israel for all settlements.

For Netanyahu, it would be an excruciating double whammy: Forcibly evicting Jews from their homes, and getting pummeled by the international community at the same time.

And that is only one nightmare scenario for the premier.

Another one goes like this: Legislation calling for the retroactive legalization of Jewish homes built on private Palestinian property in the West Bank – a bill that was temporarily shelved on Wednesday after it ran into coalition difficulties – eventually passes in one form or another.

The Right would celebrate for a few minutes – though the Supreme Court would probably end the celebration a short time later and shoot down the law – and the world, including Washington in the final days of the Obama presidency, would go crazy.

Instead of a single anti-settlement resolution in the UN, a more far-reaching resolution calling for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, with east Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, may be put forward – with a timetable, to boot. And it is this one – not a more limited anti-settlement resolution – that Obama, seething over the legalization of heretofore illegal outposts, might decide not to veto.

President-elect Donald Trump might oppose such a measure – thinking it would end any chance of him being able to broker what he has called the “ultimate deal” between Israel and the Palestinians – but Trump does not take office until January 20.

Obama, seeing other pieces of his legacy threatened by Trump, and lobbied heavily by some European governments and NGOs to leave a lasting mark on the Mideast, might be so rattled by the outpost legislation that he would take a dramatic step to counter it. And then, by the time Trump does enter office, it will be very difficult for him to undo what was already done at Turtle Bay.

Neither of those scenarios are science fiction.

Either one could conceivably transpire.

BAYIT YEHUDI chairman Naftali Bennett and the Amona residents and supporters could spare Netanyahu at least part of this nightmare by agreeing to the settlers voluntarily leaving the outpost and relocating nearby – and not demand to be repaid at this time with the bill to legalize illegal outposts as a quid pro quo.

This would prevent the issue from coming to a head now, under the Obama Administration and with threats of UN Security Council resolutions looming large. In another few weeks, with a new administration in office that might not be as forcefully opposed to all settlements everywhere, the US reaction might be different.

But Bayit Yehudi sees the current crisis over Amona as an opportunity to act for its constituents. What is at stake is not only the few dozen homes in Amona, but also thousands of others scattered in various outposts that were also built on private Palestinian land. The High Court-mandated December 25 deadline for the evacuation of Amona is an opportunity for it to be seen as not only saving Amona, but the other outposts as well. That has considerable political benefits in the battle for the Likud over rightwing voters.

So why make life easier now for Netanyahu, especially when they can score some political points? In addition, Bayit Yehudi and others to their right have been complaining for some time that Netanyahu has shelved building in Judea and Samaria under the pretense that Obama is holding him back. But now, they argue, the Obama administration is on its way out the door, and Netanyahu has a golden opportunity if not to build, then – at the very least – not to dismantle what has been built.

Were there trust between Netanyahu and Bayit Yehudi, or if the party genuinely believed that Netanyahu was interested in ultimately building beyond the settlement blocs and the security fence, they might cut him a break. But there is no trust, and so Bayit Yehudi is engaged in political brinkmanship.

At a certain point, however, Bennett will have to decide whether it is really in his interest to push Netanyahu over the cliff.

Coalition discipline broke down on Wednesday when the bill to retroactively legalize the outposts was shelved. The lack of coalition discipline that day was uncomfortable for the government, but it was only for one day. Does the Right want to bring down the government over this issue? Does it want to repeat what happened in 1992, when it toppled the Likud-led government of Yitzhak Shamir, only to wake up the next day with the Labor-led government of Yitzhak Rabin? Obviously not. Bayit Yehudi realizes the current government, from its perspective, is probably as good as it gets. To push the envelope now too far – to bring down the government over this bill at a time when a new administration is about to take office in Washington that may have a more sympathetic view of the settlement enterprise – would be self-destructive.

So Bennett will probably pull back from the brink, but not until the last minute. Why let Netanyahu off the hook early? Why not create the impression among the Right – a pool of voters for whom Bayit Yehudi competes with the Likud – that Bayit Yehudi is the true champion of the settlements, and that Netanyahu waffles on the issue and can’t be counted on? Obama, likewise, has no interest in making life easier for the prime minister.

For months administration officials have said that the president and his advisers have not yet decided on what course of action to pursue during the interregnum between the elections on November 8 and the formal end of the Obama presidency on January 20.

The administration has been extremely careful not to reveal its hand regarding what the president would do if a resolution on new parameters came before the Security Council, effectively replacing UN Security Council resolution 242 which for so long has been the baseline for all diplomatic efforts. Likewise, they have avoided answering what he would do if there was a new push for recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN, or an anti-settlement resolution.

The administration could have let on, but it has not, and there is a reason: a feeling that keeping Netanyahu guessing, not letting him know what to expect at the UN, will moderate his actions.

For instance, Netanyahu would perhaps have acted differently – and not lobbied his own security cabinet as he did this week against the outpost bill – had he been guaranteed that the US would veto an anti-Israel resolution at the Security Council.

Israeli uncertainty, from an American point of view, has its benefits. And there is indeed uncertainty, both in Israel and even in Congress, about what Obama might do.

That uncertainty was manifest this week, when Netanyahu said, as he has on numerous occasions: “I expect that in the twilight of President Obama’s tenure he will stand by what he said in 2011, that the way to achieve peace does not run through Security Council resolutions, but rather direct negotiations with the Palestinians, which has been the US position for years.”

At the UN General Assembly in 2011, Obama said of the Mideast conflict: “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations – if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.”

Even the US House of Representatives is uncertain where the president is going, as evidenced by the bipartisan resolution adopted this week reaffirming support for direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the Security Council or attempts there to impose a solution on the parties. Had the House known for certain what Obama has planned for his remaining seven weeks in office, such a resolution might have been superfluous.

Obama and Bennett view the Mideast in starkly different terms. The last few days have shown, however, that they do have one thing in common: an interest – albeit for vastly different reasons – in keeping Netanyahu both squirming and guessing

Sec’y Of State John Kerry Threatens That Obama Will Use UN To Divide Israel To Create Palestinian Stateby Geoffrey Grider

Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday said that the U.S. would not rule out taking steps at the UN to propose a framework for a Palestinian state and condemned Israel’s so-called settlement enterprise as sabotaging the two-state solution.

“I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.” Joel 3:2 (KJV)

Contrary to recent reports from U.S. officials that President Barack Obama would not take any last minute measures at the UN, Kerry would not directly confirm that the U.S. would veto any resolution intended to establish a Palestinian state, saying only that the current administration would veto it “if it is a biased, unfair resolution calculated to delegitimize Israel.”

The secretary of state also contradicted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier address at the same forum in which he said that peace with the Palestinians would come once Israel secures peace with the Arab world. Instead, Kerry insisted that securing peace with the Palestinians is a precondition for peace with the Arab world.Secretary of State John Kerry in a Conversation at the 2016 Saban Forum:

John Kerry starts out praising Israel, then predictably slams them calling them “occupiers” of Palestinian land.

“There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. Let me make that clear to you,” Kerry said. “There will be no advance or separate peace in the Arab world without advancing the Palestinian issue. Everybody needs to understand that. That is a hard reality.”

He also took Netanyahu to task for the prime minister’s claim that the failure to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is the essential issue, saying that it is the settlements, and not Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, that is to blame for the failure to make peace.

Settlements, Kerry said, “are not the cause of this conflict. But … if you have a whole bunch of people who are strategically locating outposts and settlements in an area so that there will not be a contiguous Palestinian state, they are doing it to be an obstacle to peace.”He further slammed Netanyahu’s government as having a lack of leadership, citing Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s recent comments that Israel had reached the “end of the two-state solution” as “profoundly disturbing.”

“I cannot accept the notion that [settlements] don’t affect the peace process, that they aren’t a barrier to the ability to create peace,” Kerry contended. “The left in Israel is telling everyone that it is a barrier to peace and the right, which supports it, is openly telling people that they support it because they don’t want peace. They believe in Greater Israel.”

While Israeli politicians on the right have argued that settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem has almost entirely ceased under the Obama administration, Kerry claimed that the settler population had grown by 20,000 since Obama came into office, “narrow[ing] the capacity for peace.”

The secretary of state further noted that “there has simultaneously been a process of demolition of Palestinian homes,” saying that there are currently 11,000 standing demolition orders against Palestinian-constructed buildings in the West Bank.

Kerry also warned that the failure to advance the two-state solution would render Israel’s status as a Jewish and democratic state unsustainable.

“So how does this work?” Kerry asked. “How do you have a one state that is Jewish and democratic and also has provisions in place for Israel’s security?”

“What’s your vision of a unitary state?” he continued. “If Palestinians are a majority, will there be a Palestinian prime minister of Israel? source

Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party, hailed the preliminary passage of a controversial bill to legalize Israeli settlement outposts as paving the way for Israel’s eventual annexation of Judea and Samaria.

The legislation passed its first legislative test Monday, passing a preliminary Knesset reading in a 60-49 vote. The bill still faces three more readings before it can become law.

The measure has been staunchly opposed by many in Israel, including Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who has said that the bill violates international law. The measure has been also opposed by the U.S., the European Union, and the United Nations. Israeli opposition leader MK Isaac Herzog called the preliminary passage a “dark day for the Knesset.”

But Bennett said, “Today, the Israeli Knesset moved from heading toward establishing a Palestinian state to heading toward sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, and to remove any doubt about it—the outpost regulation bill is the tip of the iceberg in applying sovereignty.”

The bill, which originally was designed to prevent the court-ordered Dec. 25 demolition of the Amona outpost, will not prevent that community from being relocated after a compromise was reached between Bennett and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Instead, the bill will recognize other Israeli settlement construction that took place on private Palestinian land—including instances in which settlers were not aware the land was privately owned or received some form of state assistance—in good faith. Additionally, the bill provides compensation for Palestinian landowners.

According to the settlement watchdog group Peace Now, the bill will enable the Israeli government to legalize 55 outposts and build another 4,000 housing units in Judea and Samaria.

UN official: Regulation Law violates international lawUN High Commissioner for Human Rights blasts Regulation Law, warns it will have "far-reaching consequences".

The UN human rights chief on Thursday slammed the “Regulation Law”, which passed its first reading in the Knesset on Wednesday, saying it would clearly violate international law.

"I strongly urge lawmakers to reconsider their support for this bill, which if enacted, would have far-reaching consequences and would seriously damage the reputation of Israel around the world," said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, according to AFP.

"In enabling the use of land privately-owned by Palestinians for Israeli settlements without the owners' consent, this legislation would violate international law,” he added.

"Israel as the occupying power, must respect the private property of Palestinians, regardless of whether or not compensation is provided," said Al Hussein.

"All Israeli settlements -- whether outposts built without formal approval but often with the support of the Israeli authorities and which are currently illegal under Israeli law, or settlements approved by Israel -- are clearly and unequivocally illegal under international law and constitute one of the main obstacles to peace," he charged.

"They are also the principal cause of a wide range of human rights violations inside the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem."

The bill would allow the Israeli government to recognize construction built with government assistance and in good faith — meaning those outposts whose builders were not aware they were constructing on private land. If the original owners of the land are known, they would be eligible to receive financial compensation from the government.

The legislation, which still needs to pass two more readings at the Knesset in order to become law, has come under fire by the international community.

Earlier on Thursday, the European Union expressed its “strong opposition” to the Regulation Law.

“If it passes, this would be the first law adopted by the Knesset on the status of land in the West Bank, an occupied territory not under its jurisdiction. Senior members of the Israeli government have called this a step toward annexation of the West Bank,” the EU statement read.

“Recalling that settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make the two-state solution impossible, the European Union reiterates its strong opposition, in line with the position of the Middle East Quartet, to Israel’s settlement policy and all actions taken in this context,” it added.

The State Department blasted the law as well earlier this week, warning it “would be profoundly damaging to the prospects for a two-state solution”.

On Monday, shortly after the bill passed its preliminary reading, the UN’s envoy to the Middle East, Nickolay Mladenov, blasted the legislation, claiming it "has the objective of protecting illegal settlements built on private Palestinian property in the West Bank.”

"It is a very worrying initiative. I encourage Israeli legislators to reconsider such a move that would have far-reaching legal consequences across the occupied West Bank," added the envoy.

Israel's ambassador to the United States issued an impassioned endorsement on Tuesday of President-elect Donald Trump's promise to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, a move that would mark a break with longstanding U.S. foreign policy.

Ron Dermer, the Israeli envoy to Washington, made the statement less than a week after Trump announced his decision to nominate as ambassador to Israel David Friedman, a pro-Israel hardliner who supports continued building of Jewish settlements and the shifting of the embassy from Tel Aviv.

Speaking at an Israeli embassy Hanukkah party, Dermer insisted that moving the U.S. diplomatic mission would be a “great step forward to peace,” rather than inflaming the Arab world, as critics of the idea have warned.

Israel and the Palestinians, who are seeking a state of their own, both claim Jerusalem as their capital. Successive U.S. administrations have said the city’s status must be negotiated. If Trump makes good on his campaign promise, it would upend decades of U.S. policy and draw international condemnation. Jerusalem is home to sites sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official warned on Friday that moving the embassy to Jerusalem would mean the “destruction of the peace process as a whole.” The last U.S.-backed talks on Palestinian statehood collapsed in 2014.

Dermer, without mentioning Trump or his ambassador-designate by name, said the embassy move “should have happened a long time ago.”

Among the main reasons, he told a crowd that included foreign diplomats and American Jewish community leaders: "It would send a strong message against the de-legitimization of Israel.”

Dermer said he hoped that next year when the new U.S. ambassador lights the traditional Hanukkah candles in his embassy, he will do so in Jerusalem.

Dermer’s comments appeared more forceful than recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long vowed to keep Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital.

Netanyahu, who has had a fractious relationship with President Barack Obama, has welcomed Trump's election but seems to be waiting to see what policies he implements.

The conservative premier is reported to have been pleased with Trump’s appointment of Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer and close friend of Trump who has no diplomatic experience, and members of his right-wing government have welcomed the choice.

Friedman has served as president of a U.S. group that raised money for one settlement and has advocated that Israel annex the West Bank, as it did with Arab East Jerusalem following its capture in the 1967 Middle East war in a move not recognized internationally.

Liberal Jewish-American activists have sharply opposed Friedman’s appointment and are urging the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate not to confirm his nomination.

Egyptian officials scrapped a plan to proceed with a United Nations Security Council vote condemning the construction of Israeli settlements, following pushback from Israeli officials and President-elect Trump.

"Egypt requested the vote's delay to permit them to conduct an additional meeting of the Arab League's foreign ministers to work on the resolution's wording," Haaretz reported, citing Western diplomats. But the vote might be postponed "indefinitely," according to the report.

Israeli settlement construction drew condemnation from the State Department earlier this year, in addition to the rebukes of more customary critics, raising fears in Israel and among congressional Republicans that President Obama might not veto a resolution on the matter in the waning days of his presidency. President-elect Trump stated his opposition to the resolution, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was lobbying Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi to drop the resolution.

"The resolution being considered at the United Nations Security Council regarding Israel should be vetoed," Trump said in a statement. "As the United States has long maintained, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations."

Washington (CNN)The United States on Friday allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to be adopted, defying extraordinary pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in alliance with President-elect Donald Trump.

The Security Council approved the resolution with 14 votes, with the US abstaining. There was applause in the chamber following the vote, which represented perhaps the final bitter chapter in the years of antagonism between President Barack Obama's administration and Netanyahu's government.

In an intense flurry of diplomacy that unfolded in the two days before the vote, a senior Israeli official had accused the United States of abandoning the Jewish state with its refusal to block the resolution with a veto.

Trump had also inserted himself in the diplomatic drama, in defiance of the convention that the United States has only only one president at a time, by calling on the Obama administration to wield its Security Council veto.

"It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed this disgraceful resolution. I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN Secretary General will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's relationship with Israel," he said.

Jerusalem (AFP) - Israel's foreign ministry said Tuesday the country was "reducing" ties with nations that voted for last week's UN Security Council resolution demanding a halt to settlement building in Palestinian territory.

Refuting reports that ties had been suspended, foreign ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said that Israel was "temporarily reducing" visits and work with embassies.

"Until further notice, we’ll limit our contacts with the embassies here in Israel and refrain from visits of Israeli officials to those states, and of visits of officials from those states here," he told AFP.

Israel has already called back its ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal for consultations, and cancelled aid programmes with the African state.

On Tuesday, Israel informed Angola it would be freezing its aid programme there, Nahshon said.

Israeli media have reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who also serves as foreign minister, has asked officials to visit the countries that voted for the resolution as little as possible for now.

At least two trips have been cancelled or postponed, including this week's visit to Israel by Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman and an upcoming visit by the Senegalese foreign minister.

There have also been reports that Netanyahu was calling off a meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May at next month's World Economic Forum in Davos, but there has been no official confirmation.

Deputy foreign minister Tzipi Hotovely said Tuesday she was concerned that Israel would miss opportunities to explain its position by cancelling visits, but that she supported making clear "you can't take Israel for granted."

Countries should not be able to "make pilgrimages to Israel to learn about fighting terror, cyber-defence and agricultural technologies, and in the UN do whatever you want," she told army radio.

Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have responded with especially harsh language to Friday's Security Council resolution which passed after the United States abstained from voting.

Netanyahu has alleged that US President Barack Obama "colluded" to see the "shameful" resolution through in the waning days of his administration.

By deciding not to veto the move, the United States enabled the adoption of the first UN resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy.

- 'Not turn other cheek' -

The text was passed with support from all remaining members of the 15-member council.

Israel summoned ambassadors of countries that voted for the resolution on Sunday -- Christmas Day -- while Netanyahu also met with US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro.

Security Council members such as Russia, China and Britain are key to Israeli diplomacy or trade and some analysts suggested the measures being taken were more symbolic than substantive.

The United States is Israel's most important ally and provides it with more than $3 billion per year in defence aid.

On Monday, Netanyahu defended his response to the UN vote in the face of criticism that he was overreacting, saying "we do not turn the other cheek".

"Not only will our relations with the nations of the world not be harmed, over time they will only improve because the nations of the world respect strong countries that stand up for themselves and do not respect weak ingratiating countries that bow their heads," he told a conference.

(CNN)Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday began to lay out President Barack Obama's administration's vision for Middle East peace, offering a framework for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Kerry defended the United States' decision to abstain -- and not veto -- a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as one aimed at "preserving the two state solution" and argued that a two-state solution is "the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians."

"I am also here to share my conviction that there is still a way forward if the responsible parties are willing to act," Kerry said, opening his speech.Kerry warned later, "Despite our best efforts over the years, the two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy."

The outgoing secretary of state's speech at the State Department comes amid heightened tensions between the US and Israeli administrations over the UN resolution vote.

Kerry defended the administration's commitment to Israel in his speech."No American administration has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's," he said. "The Israeli Prime Minister himself has noted our unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel's right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy."

The vision Kerry began to lay out on Wednesday, though, is likely to be short-lasting: In less than a month, Kerry and Obama will leave office and President-elect Donald Trump -- who has vowed to radically reverse the recent downward trend in US-Israel relations -- will take over.

Trump, in his latest breach of presidential transition protocol, weighed in on Twitter Wednesday morning ahead of Kerry's speech to make that much clear.

"We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)!" Trump tweeted. "Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!"

We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but....... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a quick reply to Trump on Twitter, thanking him for his "warm friendship" and "clear-cut support."

Netanyahu's government has said in recent days Israel will provide detailed, sensitive information to the incoming Trump administration to bolster their claims that the US played a covert role in pushing passage of the UN Security Council resolution on Israel. The Obama administration has denied any such involvement.

Netanyahu's outrage, though, has played out publicly. The Israeli prime minister launched a scathing attack on the Obama adminstration on Sunday and summoned the US ambassador to a face to face meeting.

Israeli official: Proof of US role in UN vote to be given to TrumpThe United States abstained on the resolution, allowing it to pass, rather than vetoing it -- as it usually does with resolutions it sees as overly critical of Israel.

Kerry had planned to give the speech last Thursday, when the vote was originally planned. Those plans got scrapped after the proposal's original sponsor, Egypt, forced a delay for a day.

Jerusalem (CNN)Israel stepped back from approving hundreds of new homes in East Jerusalem on Wednesday, ahead of a speech by US Secretary of State John Kerry on the Obama administration's vision for Middle East peace.

The city council in Jerusalem canceled a vote to approve the construction of 492 units -- such as homes, synagogues and other public buildings -- in areas of East Jerusalem annexed by Israel.

Council member Hanan Rubin, a member of the city's zoning committee, said the decision followed a request from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It came days after the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel's settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and as Kerry prepared to give his speech on Wednesday.

"The municipality regards housing in Jerusalem as a municipal need rather than a political action, and therefore there is no need to vote on this on a sensitive day when John Kerry is to give a speech," Rubin said.

"We don't want to be a part of a political controversy."

The reason behind Netanyahu's call for the city council's vote to be canceled remains unclear, and the vote could still come before the city council's zoning committee in the future.

Moving the embassy would be crossing a "red line" and could jeopardize peace prospects, warned Abbas, according to AFP. "Any statement or position that disrupts or changes the status of Jerusalem is a red line which we will not accept," he declared in a speech, a transcript of which was published by the official Palestinian news agency Wafa.

John Kerry Unveils His Plan For A Palestinian State Based Upon 1967 Borders With East Jerusalem As The Capital

Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the back on Friday, and now John Kerry has slapped Israel in the face just five days later. In a shameful speech that lasted for 71 dreadful minutes, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry laid out his plan for peace in the Middle East on Wednesday. His six-part plan is being welcomed warmly by the Palestinians, but it has further infuriated the Israelis. Kerry claims that his plan reflects the emerging global consensus as to what a “final solution” will look like, and now we will wait to see what the 70 nations that will be gathering in France to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on January 15th will do. There is a great deal of concern that the principles agreed upon at that conference will form the basis for a UN Security Council resolution that will be rushed to a vote before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20th.

The core of Kerry’s plan is the division of the land of Israel into two states. The borders between Israel and “Palestine” would be based upon the 1967 ceasefire lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps. The following comes from ynetnews.com…

Outgoing US Secretary of State John Kerry laid out the Obama administration’s parameters for peace between Israel and the Palestinians during a speech at the State Department on Wednesday that lasted 71 minutes, one of the longest in US State Department history.

Breaking sharply from longstanding US policy that foreign powers shouldn’t impose a solution, Kerry unveiled a six-part outline of what a future peace deal could look like. The outline tracked closely with principles long assumed to be part of an eventual deal, and Kerry insisted he was merely describing what’s emerged as points of general agreement.

Primarily, Kerry called to create a secure and recognized border between Israel and a contiguous Palestine along the 1967 lines, with “mutually agreed, equivalent (land) swaps.”

As part of the land swaps, Kerry insists that the Palestinians must be given land that connects the West Bank and the Gaza strip. In his speech he stated that “Palestine must be viable and contiguous”, and he made it exceedingly clear that East Jerusalem will be the capital of the new Palestinian state.

Of course UN Security Council Resolution 2334 has already given the entire West Bank and every inch of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. So the only thing that another UN Security Council resolution would be needed for would be to formally establish a Palestinian state.

Kerry went on to say that if Israel does not accept a two-state solution “it will not have peace with the rest of the Arab world, I can guarantee that.”

Of course Kerry is half-correct in making that statement, because Israel will not have peace with the rest of the Arab world even if a Palestinian state is established. In fact, the establishment of a Palestinian state would actually make war much more likely.

Kerry also shockingly claimed that “Israel can either be Jewish or democratic”…

Kerry said a two-state solution, which calls for an independent Palestinian state existing peacefully alongside Israel, is the only way to guarantee the Jewish state’s long-term security in the region.

“If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both,” Kerry said.

Needless to say, Kerry’s speech sparked a tremendous amount of outrage among pro-Israel leaders here in the United States.

Yes John Kerry, if only this orange sliver was smaller there would be peace. pic.twitter.com/afvRO0O9Kq

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) December 28, 2016

One of the leaders that is condemning Kerry’s remarks is U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. In a strongly worded statement, he accused Barack Obama and John Kerry of being “relentless enemies of Israel”…

Ted Cruz, a Republican senator and 2016 presidential candidate, lit into Kerry and Obama in a statement that accused of them being ‘bitter clingers.’

They’re ‘spending every last minute of this administration wreaking havoc domestically and abroad,’ he said.

‘These acts are shameful. They are designed to secure a legacy, and indeed they have: history will record and the world will fully understand Obama and Kerry as relentless enemies of Israel.’

And Donald Trump is speaking out as well. On Twitter, he let the world know what he thinks about how the Obama administration has been treating Israel…

“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” Trump tweeted. “The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.!) Stay strong, Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”

In response, Barack Obama actually got on the phone and called Donald Trump in an attempt to smooth things over.

After eight years of failure, Barack Obama has saved the very worst for last. With less than 30 days to go in his presidency, he has chosen this moment to betray Israel, and by doing so he has greatly cursed America.

I don’t get upset about a lot these days, but this is something that is worth getting upset about. If Obama would have just left things alone, everything would have been fine. But instead of deferring to the next president on important matters, Obama has chosen to implement a “scorched earth policy” during his final month in the White House.

As we move into 2017, our relationship with Israel is going to be one of the biggest political issues that we are facing.

If you are anti-Israel, you are with Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, the United Nations and all the rest of the globalists that are obsessed with dividing the land of Israel.

If you are pro-Israel, you are with Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Ted Cruz and all of the other brave leaders that are fighting the forces of globalism.

All over the world, the forces of anti-Semitism are rising. Even here in the United States, there are large numbers of people that are virulently anti-Israel.

Ultimately, it is a spiritual thing. Those that hate Israel and that hate the Jewish people are being inspired by the powers of darkness, and this cancer is spreading even among those that call themselves Bible-believing Christians.

God loves all people – and this includes the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the ultimate solution to the problems in the Middle East would be to follow God’s blueprint, but unfortunately global leaders have their own ideas, and their anti-Semitic agenda is going to end up getting an enormous amount of people killed.

The 70 Nations That Will Meet In Paris On January 15th Are Going To Publicly Commit To Dividing The Land Of Israel

A draft of the summary statement that will be released at the conclusion of the 70 nation conference in Paris on Sunday has been leaked. As you will see below, this communique is going to call for the division of the land of Israel, for the establishment of a Palestinian state, for the 1967 borders to serve as the basis for final negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and for the condemnation of any officials that refuse to support a two state solution. Of course this comes on the heels of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which many believe represented America’s greatest betrayal of Israel. Israeli government officials are publicly warning that there is a possibility that the principles agreed upon at this conference may form the basis for another Security Council resolution before January 20th, and this is something that we should all be watching for very closely.

Haaretz exclusively obtained a copy of a draft of the summary statement that will be released following the conference on Sunday, and you can read it for yourself right here. Reportedly, there was a major meeting of diplomats last Friday, and the latest draft reflects feedback that was received from those diplomats during that meeting…

Last Friday, there was a meeting of senior diplomats from the dozens of Western and Arab countries that will attend the conference. The French delegate, Pierre Vimont, presented them with the first draft of the conference’s summary communiqué and asked for comments.

According to Western diplomats, Vimont said France wants to reach a consensus among the participating states on a balanced statement that would stress the centrality of the two-state solution to the international community, but would take this month’s transfer of presidential power in the United States into account.

In many ways, the document very closely tracks the language of UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Here are some of the things that really stood out to me in the draft…

-It makes a clear commitment to “two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security”.

-It insists that there must be an end to “the occupation that began in 1967”.

-It calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to publicly renew their commitment to a two state solution.

-It also calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to publicly renounce any of their officials that do not support a two state solution.

-It states that the 70 nations gathered in Paris only recognize the June 4th, 1967 borders, and that the only future changes to those borders they will recognize will come as the result of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And just like UN Security Council Resolution 2334, Jerusalem is specifically mentioned. So according to this document, Israel does not own the Wailing Wall, the Temple Mount, a single inch of the West Bank or a single inch of East Jerusalem.

-The summary statement will also call on all countries to clearly distinguish between the State of Israel and territories that would belong to the Palestinians based upon the 1967 borders in all of their dealings.

Needless to say, this is a horribly anti-Israel document and the Israeli government is already strongly denouncing it.

At this point, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is most alarmed about the possibility that this summary statement could be used as the basis for another UN Security Council resolution just a few days later…

Netanyahu fears that the final communiqué of the Paris conference will be adopted next Monday by the EU foreign ministers’ council and the foreign ministers of the Quartet, and might also be the basis for another resolution at the Security Council, which is scheduled to convene next Tuesday for its monthly debate on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

“We find ourselves only a few days before the Paris conference and, only a few days later, a Security Council debate,” Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday. “We are making a great effort to prevent another Security Council resolution.”

By organizing this conference and trying to lead the way in the effort to divide the land of Israel, France is in danger of greatly cursing itself.

Recently I was asked why God cares so much about Israel. Well, I think that a very basic illustration can help us to understand this better.

If you want to greatly anger any man, just go after his home and his family. This will be true in just about any culture all across the globe.

Similarly, when the rest of the world attempts to divide the land of Israel and hurt the Jewish people, they are going after the family that Jesus was born into and the city where He will rule and reign for 1000 years after He comes back.

When Jesus was being crucified, Roman soldiers divided up his clothing, and that was a deeply disgraceful thing to do.

But now just before Jesus returns, the entire globe is trying to divide up His land and divide up the one city on the entire planet that He has identified as His city (Matthew 5:35).

Why are our leaders being so foolish? In the Scriptures, God specifically warns us that in the last days He will judge the nations for dividing up His land. This is what Joel chapter 3:1-2 says in the Modern English Version…

In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations, and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. I will enter into judgment with them there regarding My people and My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations; they have also divided up My land.

Those that bless Israel will be blessed, and those that curse Israel will be cursed.

And the 70 nations that are gathering in Paris, France on Sunday are literally in danger of cursing the entire planet.

Let us just pray that there will not be another UN Security Council resolution following this conference, because that would be absolutely disastrous for Israel, for the United States, and for the rest of the globe.

Pope Francis Authorizes Palestinian Embassy At The Vatican As He Threatens Trump On Jerusalem Move

The developments came as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with Pope Francis and inaugurated the Palestinian embassy to the Holy See. Abbas said he had only heard through news reports of the proposal by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

The Vatican stressed the sacred nature of Jerusalem on Saturday as the Palestinian leader warned that prospects for peace could suffer if the incoming Trump administration goes ahead with plans to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“So the angel that communed with me said unto me, Cry thou, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy.” Zechariah 1:14 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pope Francis said that Jerusalem does not belong to the Jews alone, as the Bible says it does, but must be shared with Israel’s arch-enemy the Palestinians. He also authorized the creation of a Palestinian embassy at the Vatican. That tells you all you need to know about whose side the pope is on. Pope Francis warned Donald Trump against fulfilling his campaign promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The developments came as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with Pope Francis and inaugurated the Palestinian embassy to the Holy See. Abbas said he had only heard through news reports of the proposal by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

The Palestinians strongly oppose the embassy move, saying it would kill any hopes for negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and rile the region by undercutting Muslim and Christian claims to the holy city.

New Palestinian embassy opened in the Vatican:

“We hope that this news is not true, because it is not encouraging and will disrupt and hinder the peace process,” he said. He urged Trump to open a dialogue with both Israelis and Palestinians.

Trump hasn’t yet laid out a clear Mideast policy, but has signaled he will be more sympathetic to Israel’s hard-line right than previous administrations.

In Paris on Sunday, the French government is hosting a Mideast peace conference attended by dozens of foreign ministers to show Trump’s administration that most of the world wants a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians and is fed up with decades of conflict.Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met Pope Francis in the Vatican Saturday to inaugurate the opening of the first Palestinian embassy to the Holy See.

The Vatican has long sought an internationally guaranteed status for Jerusalem that safeguards its sacred character. In its communique after the Abbas meeting, the Holy See didn’t refer to Jerusalem by name but said during the talks “emphasis was placed on the importance of safeguarding the sanctity of the holy places for believers of all three of the Abrahamic religions.”

During the meeting, Abbas presented Francis with gifts recalling Christianity’s birthplace in the Holy Land, including a stone from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and documentation about the ongoing restoration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

After the papal meeting, Abbas formally inaugurated the new Palestinian embassy across the street from one of the main gates of Vatican City. He pulled back a curtain revealing a plaque and extended the Palestinian flag from a flagpole outside a window.

The embassy, located in the same building as the embassies of Peru, Ecuador and Burkina Faso, comes after recent accords in which the Vatican formally recognized the “State of Palestine.“

“This embassy is a place of pride for us and we hope all of the countries of the world will recognize the state of Palestine, because this recognition will bring us closer to the peace process,” he said.

Abbas had initially accepted an invitation to be in Paris on Sunday, but French officials say that visit has been postponed. source

“Indeed, the outcome of the summit was overall positive but we expected it to lay out concrete parameters that would translate our resolutions into operative steps, but because the participating governments didn’t want to confront Trump they didn’t go that far,” said Tayseer Nasrallah, a member of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.

“Declaring a Palestinian State in the 1967 borders, a resolution against the settlements, their commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state … all this is fine and well, but sadly we don’t see a mechanism that would usher in the implementation,” he said. “It’s hard to predict what Trump will do. But based on his election pledges, he is unlikely to be committed to (Secretary of State John) Kerry’s parameters and the Paris resolutions. It’s hard to predict his Middle East policy altogether, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, but if that happens it will definitely give an indication of his ideas regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Nasrallah said that in preparing for the Paris summit “there was excellent coordination between the Palestinian Authority and the Obama administration. There was excellent coordination with France. But again, the question that arises is whether the Trump Administration will allow the community of nations to implement the resolution or not.”

More than 70 nations attended the Paris summit, where they affirmed the international community’s commitment to creating a Palestinian state. Reports in the Israeli news media credited the Jewish state’s diplomats with helping to temper the language of the summit’s final declaration, calling the text a “significant weakening” and “less harsh than was initially expected.”

The Fatah official is not the only one to comment on the incoming Trump administration’s influence over the Paris summit outcome.

The Guardian newspaper on Sunday ran with a story titled, “UK signals closeness to Trump with snub to French Middle East summit.”

The newspaper reported:

The British government has signaled its determination to stay close to Donald Trump’s administration by refusing to send a high-level delegation to the Middle East peace conference organised by the French government.

Neither a Foreign Office minister, nor the UK ambassador to France, will be attending the meeting on Sunday. Most large EU countries have sent their foreign minister, and the British approach may hint at future UK policy choices. The French regard the conference as a vital chance to reaffirm the case for a negotiated two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Trump’s transition team reportedly told French diplomats they disapproved of the conference going ahead, seeing it as an attempt to put unfair pressure on Israel and give an unjustified reward to the Palestinians. The British government likely fears that the conference risks becoming a means to circumscribe future US policy on Israel before the Trump team has decided on it.

Numerous unconfirmed reports are circulating in the international media that President Donald Trump intends announcing Monday that he will relocate the U.S. embassy to Israel from the coastal city of Tel Aviv to the capital city of Jerusalem.

erusalem has been Israel’s capital city since its founding in 1948, but most countries have deferred moving the embassy there because the original UN partition plan for the British Mandate proposed Jerusalem as a city under international sovereignty.

Jordan, the Palestinians, and all surrounding Arab nations rejected the UN plan, and the Jordanian army took over the eastern half of Jerusalem in 1948, expelling the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City, where Jews had lived for several millennia.

With that part of the UN plan effectively rejected by Jordan and the Arab world, Israel established its capital in western Jerusalem. Though Palestinians, in theory, claim all of Jerusalem for themselves, the part of Jerusalem west of the 1949 armistice line (the “1967 lines,” or the “Green Line”) will unquestionably remain part of Israel in any peace agreement.

The core of the Arab and Muslim rejection of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a rejection of Jewish claims to religious and historical connection to the city itself. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat once turned down an offer of shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount because, as he told then-President Bill Clinton, he saw the Jewish claim to the holy site as fictitious.

In 1995, Congress mandated that the U.S. move the embassy to Israel through the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The law, however, contained a waiver that allowed the president to keep the embassy in Tel Aviv, acknowledging the supremacy of the executive in determining the foreign policy of the U.S. Trump’s pledge on Monday — if it comes to fruition — would decline that waiver.

Opponents of the decision to move the embassy have warned that it would set off violence in the Arab world. But it would also inspire joyful celebrations in Israel and around the world, as the U.S. would likely inspire other countries to follow its example, and would help Israel cement its national vision of “a free nation in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem.”

At the inaugural ceremony itself, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles stressed the themes of Zion and Jerusalem, quoting from Psalm 137:5: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.”

President Trump was scheduled to speak to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netnayhu by telephone on Sunday afternoon.

Update: The White House has responded to the reports in the foreign press with a statement indicating that no statement on Jerusalem was “imminent,” and that the administration was “at the very beginning stages of even discussing this subject.”

The new UN chief added that there is "no doubt" that Jerusalem is holy to all three of the major monotheistic religions. He also said, according to Israel Radio, that he had no intention of pushing for a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, though he believes in the two-state solution and would assist in that goal if asked.

Ahmad Majdalani, a Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee member, said that the statements "undermine the trustworthiness of the UN as a body that should support occupied peoples.” (UNESCO resolution on Temple Mount in Jerusalem)

“It appears that the secretary general of the United Nations lacks culture and knowledge in his own specialization,” Majdalani, who also serves as an adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, told Xinhua, calling on the UN secretary-general to clarify his position “that gives a green light to the occupation to undertake more measures against Jerusalem.”

UNESCO's World Heritage Committee approved a resolution in October that made no mention of Jewish ties to the Temple Mount, exclusively referring to the holy site as its is known in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque/ Al-Haram Al-Sharif.

Fayez Abu Eitah, the secretary-general of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, said that Gueterres’s statements are unacceptable politically and morally.

“[The statements] are a direct attack on the Palestinian people’s right in the holy city, biased in favor of the site of occupation, and akin to granting legitimacy to Israel’s illegal presence in Jerusalem,” Abu Eitah told official PA television.

Moreover, the Palestinian representative to UNESCO Mounir Anastas rejected Guterres’s statements, which he argued hold no legal significance, while saying that that the Temple Mount is holy for all three Semitic religions, according to official PA radio.

António Guterres, the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations, formerly the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), told Israel Radio on Sunday that it is clear the Jerusalem temple destroyed by the Romans was Jewish. This only a few months following a shameful statement by UNESCO that ignored any connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem.

Guterres served as Prime Minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, and was the Secretary-General of the Socialist Party from 1992 to 2002. He also served as President of Socialist International from 1999 to 2005. In 2012, Guterres appointed American actress Angelina Jolie as his Special Envoy to represent UNHCR and himself at the diplomatic level.

Speaking to Israel radio in New York, Secretary-General Guterres said no one today can deny that Jerusalem is sacred to the world’s three monotheistic religions.

The new UN Secretary-General also said he was not planning to initiate a political move between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, even though he does believe in a two-state solution and will help the two sides should they request it. He also stressed that he intends to insist on an equal treatment of all the UN member states.

During the UN General Assembly’s special session in honor of International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust Friday, Guterres said the world has a duty to remember that the Holocaust was a systematic attempt to eliminate the Jewish people and so many others, noting that building a future of dignity and equality for all will honor the victims of this “incomparable tragedy in human history […] who we will never allow to be forgotten.”

Guterres said in video message that it would be a dangerous error to think of the Holocaust as simply the result of the insanity of a group of criminal Nazis.

“On the contrary, the Holocaust was the culmination of millennia of hatred, scapegoating and discrimination targeting the Jews, what we now call anti-Semitism,” he emphasized, adding that tragically and contrary to the international community’s resolve, anti-Semitism continues to thrive.

Moreover, the world is also witnessing a “deeply troubling” rise in extremism, xenophobia, racism and anti-Muslim hatred. “Irrationality and intolerance are back,” said the new UN chief.

Stressing that this is in complete contrast to the universal values enshrined in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Guterres said: “We can never remain silent or indifferent when human beings are suffering. We must always defend the vulnerable and bring tormentors to justice. And as the theme of this year’s observance highlights, a better future depends on education.”

“After the horrors of the 20th century, there should be no room for intolerance in the 21st. I guarantee you that as Secretary-General of the United Nations, I will be in the frontline of the battle against anti-Semitism and all other forms of hatred,” Guterres said.

While the United States has refused to condemn passage of the Regulation Law Monday night, Britain and the European Union slammed the legislation on Tuesday, saying that it threatened the pursuit of a two-state solution. Neither referrred to the previous situation on Cyprus, when Greeks were allowed to recompense Turks for building on their land when the island was divided rather than abandon their home, this with the consent of the Hague Court.

This Is Not How You Reverse The Curse: Trump Administration Set To Announce Support For A ‘Two State Solution’

Many had believed that the “two state solution” would be “dead” under a Trump administration, but that is turning out not to be the case at all. According to an Israeli news source, the Trump administration is about to publicly declare support for a “two state solution”, and officials have reportedly been in contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office regarding “ideas to promote the two state solution.” This is extremely alarming, because I have previously written about how those that bless Israel will be blessed and those that curse Israel will be cursed. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was a major step toward dividing the land of Israel, and when Barack Obama refused to veto that resolution in December he put the United States on the wrong side of that equation. In an article back in January, I listed 10 things that Trump could do to try to reverse the curse that Obama had brought on America, but instead it appears that Trump is also being seduced by the idea that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace to the Middle East.

According to Ynet News, the decision has already been made. It is going to be the position of the Trump administration that a “two state solution” is needed in the Middle East, and there have already been discussions between Israeli officials and Trump administration officials about how to move the process forward…

The Trump administration clarified in recent days to the Prime Minister’s bureau that it intended to support the ‘two-state solution’ as the base for negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The clarifications were part of the preparations currently underway for the first meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump since the latter assumed the American presidency. That meeting is to take place next week in the US capital.

American officials have been in communication with Jerusalem, and they have sent a series of messages for the prime minister with ideas to promote the two-state solution. This would lay the groundwork for a joint statement from both the heads of government supporting this step.

And to be honest, this shouldn’t exactly be a huge surprise.

Shortly after being elected, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he wanted to get the Israelis and the Palestinians to agree to “the ultimate deal”, and that he wanted to do so “for humanity’s sake”…

President elect-Donald Trump wasted no time placing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict high on his foreign policy agenda, telling The Wall Street Journal on Friday that he hopes to end the conflict after taking office in January.

“That’s the ultimate deal,” said Trump. “As a deal maker, I’d like to do … the deal that can’t be made. And to do it for humanity’s sake. He referred to the conflict as the “war that never ends.”

Of course Trump knew when he made that statement that the Palestinians would never agree to a deal that does not give them their own state.

So the truth is that Trump has been thinking about a Palestinian state for a long time, but now he is going to publicly come out and back one.

All of those pundits on the right and the left that were suggesting that the “two state solution” was now dead were completely wrong. Sadly, Trump is a lot more like his predecessors when it comes to foreign policy than many were anticipating, and so far he is not nearly as pro-Israel as many supporters of Israel were hoping.

In fact, just a few days ago the Trump administration released a statement denouncing any new Israeli settlements or the expansion of any existing settlements in the West Bank. The following comes from the official White House website…

“While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. As the President has expressed many times, he hopes to achieve peace throughout the Middle East region.”

And the Trump administration was not happy about a new Israeli law that was just passed that retroactively legalized about 4,000 “settler outposts” in Judea and Samaria. So far Trump is not loudly denouncing this new law, but much of the rest of the world is definitely doing so…

France called the bill a “new attack on the two-state solution”, while Britain said it “damages Israel’s standing with its international partners”.

Turkey “strongly condemned” the law and Israel’s “unacceptable” settlement policy, and the Arab League accused Israel of “stealing the land and appropriating the property of Palestinians”.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres boldly proclaimed that this new law “is in contravention of international law and will have far reaching legal consequences for Israel”, and another UN official says that Israel has crossed “a very thick red line”…

The law crossed a “thick red line” toward annexation of the West Bank, the United Nations said earlier Tuesday.

UN envoy for the Middle East peace process Nickolay Mladenov said the bill set a “very dangerous precedent.”

“This is the first time the Israeli Knesset legislates in the occupied Palestinian lands and particularly on property issues,” he told AFP.

“That crosses a very thick red line.”

Tensions in the Middle East are on the rise again, and we could literally see missiles start flying back and forth at any minute.

There is going to be a tremendous amount of pressure on Trump to try to bring peace to the Middle East, and Trump is already making it clear that he believes that a “two state solution” is the “ultimate deal”.

But if Donald Trump were to broker a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians that would permanently divide the land of Israel into two states, he would greatly curse this nation, and so many of the things that I talk about in my new book would begin to happen.

It wouldn’t matter that Donald Trump is a conservative Republican that was backed by more than 80 percent of all evangelical Christians that voted in the last election. If Donald Trump is successful in dividing the land of Israel, we will be greatly cursed, and there will be disastrous consequences for the United States, for the Middle East, and for the entire planet.

So some of Donald Trump’s new evangelical Christian buddies need to start talking some sense to him before he does something that will be absolutely catastrophic for all of us.

The Palestinians will start a new violent uprising if Donald Trump’s incoming White House administration relocates the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a senior Fatah official said this week in an interview translated by MEMRI. “I believe that any American act of stupidity will ignite the Palestinian territories,” Fatah Central Committee member Sultan Abu al-Einein told Egypt’s Alghad TV on Sunday.